Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Condition Requiring Wife To Sponsor Husband's Travel From USA For His Cross-Examination In Matrimonial Case

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by Family Court allowing application made by the wife to cross-examine her husband subject to a condition that she would bear his travel expense of Rs 1.65 lakhs, from the USA to Bangalore.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by Sindhu Boregowda and said “Putting a condition of the kind would virtually amount to foreclosing petitioner’s right to cross examine/further cross-examine the respondent that too in a serious matter in which her marriage is at stake. Courts of justice cannot stipulate a condition to a party which he or she will not be in a position to comply with.”

The husband has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Bengaluru. The trial of the case is half way through, the husband is presently residing in the U.S. The family court vide order dated 16-11-2022, allowed the wife to cross examine husband subject to the condition of making payment for travel expenses.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that his client is being paid a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000 and some of that is still remaining due, the impugned condition for making a payment of huge money could not have been stipulated. The plea was opposed by the husband.

The bench remarked “Admittedly, the Court below has directed the payment of monthly maintenance to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.20,000, and that petitioner has laid a challenge to the alleged frugal sum, which is pending. The amount is directed to be paid so that the petitioner who apparently does not have means of livelihood.”

Then it added “If that be so, this Court is at loss to know the logic in directing the petitioner to make good the travelling expenses of the respondent-husband who is gainfully employed in the United States of America.”

The bench expressed “The learned Judge of the Court below ought to have thought, as to how the petitioner would be able to pay this amount, even if the respondent because of his travel has incurred that expenditure.”

The bench opined “It is not that the respondent-husband is a poor gentleman and therefore he could not afford to spend for his travel to India for prosecuting the Marriage Dissolution Case which he himself has instituted. If the petitioner-wife had instituted it, different considerations would have arisen.”

Allowing the petition it requested the court below to organise cross-examination/further cross examination at the hands of the petitioner, subject to convenience of both the sides.

Case Title: Sindhu Boregowda And Yashwanth Bhaskar B P

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24827 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 228

Date of Order: 05-06-2023

Appearance: Advocate Sris N Bhat for petitioner.

Advocate Ganesh H Kempanna for respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order